Origins of Palestinians and Jews in Palestine/Israel

[Phoenall]

Support your claim with historical research then because I have found plenty of material that supports what I've shown and you can't discount it as "Islamonazifascistjooohating" sources.

Will this do



Palestinians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal historian Assaf Likhovski states that the prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the 20th century.[33] "Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine in a limited way until World War I.[

Syria Palestina continued to be used by historians and geographers and others to refer to the area between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river, as in the writings of Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder. After the Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.[51] The Arabic word Filastin has been used to refer to the region since the time of the earliest medieval Arab geographers. It appears to have been used as an Arabic adjectival noun in the region since as early as the 7th century CE

Israeli historian Efraim Karsh takes the view that the Palestinian identity did not develop until after the 1967 war because the Palestinian exodus had fractured society so greatly that it was impossible to piece together a national identity. Between 1948 and 1967, the Jordanians and other Arab countries hosting Arab refugees from Palestine/Israel silenced any expression of Palestinian identity and occupied their lands until Israel's conquests of 1967. The formal annexation of the West Bank by Jordan in 1950, and the subsequent granting of its Palestinian residents Jordanian citizenship, further stunted the growth of a Palestinian national identity by integrating them into Jordanian society

Perfect - because that explains exactly where the disconnect is occuring. You are referring to the "Palestinian Identity" - not people. It's like "Israeli" is a national identity even though Israel wasn't reinvented until the 1940s. The people have been there all along and they weren't just Jews.

True, but there were zero Muslim Palestinians. Most of them are just squatters with no tittles or deeds whatsoever to their stolen land.

Nearly all Palestinians were either Muslim or Christian before the European Jews began colonizing the land.

There were more Christians than Jews in Palestine in 1921.

AN INTERIM REPORT
ON THE
CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
OF

PALESTINE,

during the period
1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.


AN INTERIM REPORT
ON THE
CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
OF
PALESTINE.

I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.


There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.

Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)

The report of a known Nazi and Jew hater

 

[Phoenall]

It is not my facts at all, nor is it my claim. But it is the claim of the arab muslims prior to 1960 that the only Palestinians were the Jews, and the term was a racist swear word to the muslims

Support your claim with historical research then because I have found plenty of material that supports what I've shown and you can't discount it as "Islamonazifascistjooohating" sources.

Will this do



Palestinians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal historian Assaf Likhovski states that the prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the 20th century.[33] "Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine in a limited way until World War I.[

Syria Palestina continued to be used by historians and geographers and others to refer to the area between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river, as in the writings of Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder. After the Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.[51] The Arabic word Filastin has been used to refer to the region since the time of the earliest medieval Arab geographers. It appears to have been used as an Arabic adjectival noun in the region since as early as the 7th century CE

Israeli historian Efraim Karsh takes the view that the Palestinian identity did not develop until after the 1967 war because the Palestinian exodus had fractured society so greatly that it was impossible to piece together a national identity. Between 1948 and 1967, the Jordanians and other Arab countries hosting Arab refugees from Palestine/Israel silenced any expression of Palestinian identity and occupied their lands until Israel's conquests of 1967. The formal annexation of the West Bank by Jordan in 1950, and the subsequent granting of its Palestinian residents Jordanian citizenship, further stunted the growth of a Palestinian national identity by integrating them into Jordanian society

Perfect - because that explains exactly where the disconnect is occuring. You are referring to the "Palestinian Identity" - not people. It's like "Israeli" is a national identity even though Israel wasn't reinvented until the 1940s. The people have been there all along and they weren't just Jews.

True, but there were zero Muslim Palestinians. Most of them are just squatters with no tittles or deeds whatsoever to their stolen land.

Wrong. There were many Palestinian Muslims who had lived there as long as the indiginous Jews.

So you are now saying that islam was invented 2700 years before mo'mad was born. Why haven't we seen this mentioned in the history books, have we been lied to by our leaders all these years and really we should be worshipping allah.

Indigenous Jews have lived there for 4,500 years, Palestinian muslims for 22 years then for 140 years.

 

[Coyote]

Support your claim with historical research then because I have found plenty of material that supports what I've shown and you can't discount it as "Islamonazifascistjooohating" sources.

Will this do



Palestinians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal historian Assaf Likhovski states that the prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the 20th century.[33] "Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine in a limited way until World War I.[

Syria Palestina continued to be used by historians and geographers and others to refer to the area between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river, as in the writings of Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder. After the Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.[51] The Arabic word Filastin has been used to refer to the region since the time of the earliest medieval Arab geographers. It appears to have been used as an Arabic adjectival noun in the region since as early as the 7th century CE

Israeli historian Efraim Karsh takes the view that the Palestinian identity did not develop until after the 1967 war because the Palestinian exodus had fractured society so greatly that it was impossible to piece together a national identity. Between 1948 and 1967, the Jordanians and other Arab countries hosting Arab refugees from Palestine/Israel silenced any expression of Palestinian identity and occupied their lands until Israel's conquests of 1967. The formal annexation of the West Bank by Jordan in 1950, and the subsequent granting of its Palestinian residents Jordanian citizenship, further stunted the growth of a Palestinian national identity by integrating them into Jordanian society

Perfect - because that explains exactly where the disconnect is occuring. You are referring to the "Palestinian Identity" - not people. It's like "Israeli" is a national identity even though Israel wasn't reinvented until the 1940s. The people have been there all along and they weren't just Jews.

True, but there were zero Muslim Palestinians. Most of them are just squatters with no tittles or deeds whatsoever to their stolen land.

Wrong. There were many Palestinian Muslims who had lived there as long as the indiginous Jews.

So you are now saying that islam was invented 2700 years before mo'mad was born. Why haven't we seen this mentioned in the history books, have we been lied to by our leaders all these years and really we should be worshipping allah.

Indigenous Jews have lived there for 4,500 years, Palestinian muslims for 22 years then for 140 years.

You seem to be missing big chunks of information Phoenal. For example - when Islam appeared, Muslims didn't just drop from the sky like manna from heaven. They didn't appear out nowhere fully formed.

The people that are Muslim today are descendents of peoples who lived there and were previously Christian, Jewish, and other religions that existed there. Read the quotes I posted. They are descendents of the indiginous peoples mixed with other people who migrated over time (just like the Jews).

So I suggest you ditch that bit of nonsense and look at some history books.

 

[Coyote]

Support your claim with historical research then because I have found plenty of material that supports what I've shown and you can't discount it as "Islamonazifascistjooohating" sources.

Will this do



Palestinians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal historian Assaf Likhovski states that the prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the 20th century.[33] "Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine in a limited way until World War I.[

Syria Palestina continued to be used by historians and geographers and others to refer to the area between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river, as in the writings of Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder. After the Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.[51] The Arabic word Filastin has been used to refer to the region since the time of the earliest medieval Arab geographers. It appears to have been used as an Arabic adjectival noun in the region since as early as the 7th century CE

Israeli historian Efraim Karsh takes the view that the Palestinian identity did not develop until after the 1967 war because the Palestinian exodus had fractured society so greatly that it was impossible to piece together a national identity. Between 1948 and 1967, the Jordanians and other Arab countries hosting Arab refugees from Palestine/Israel silenced any expression of Palestinian identity and occupied their lands until Israel's conquests of 1967. The formal annexation of the West Bank by Jordan in 1950, and the subsequent granting of its Palestinian residents Jordanian citizenship, further stunted the growth of a Palestinian national identity by integrating them into Jordanian society

Perfect - because that explains exactly where the disconnect is occuring. You are referring to the "Palestinian Identity" - not people. It's like "Israeli" is a national identity even though Israel wasn't reinvented until the 1940s. The people have been there all along and they weren't just Jews.

True, but there were zero Muslim Palestinians. Most of them are just squatters with no tittles or deeds whatsoever to their stolen land.

Nearly all Palestinians were either Muslim or Christian before the European Jews began colonizing the land.

Cant see the tags saying I am a muslim on any of those people, so how do you know what denomination they are ?

According to the Catholic church the majority of inhabitants were Jews, are you calling your church liars now ?

None of the census' from the Ottomans or the Mandate support that claim Phoenal.

 

[Coyote]

Read the facts and weep. Your claim that the only Palestinians were Jews is false. Regardless of what name you give them the indiginous peoples of that region comprised a variety of ethnic and religious identities.

It is not my facts at all, nor is it my claim. But it is the claim of the arab muslims prior to 1960 that the only Palestinians were the Jews, and the term was a racist swear word to the muslims

Support your claim with historical research then because I have found plenty of material that supports what I've shown and you can't discount it as "Islamonazifascistjooohating" sources.

Will this do



Palestinians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal historian Assaf Likhovski states that the prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the 20th century.[33] "Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine in a limited way until World War I.[

Syria Palestina continued to be used by historians and geographers and others to refer to the area between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river, as in the writings of Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder. After the Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.[51] The Arabic word Filastin has been used to refer to the region since the time of the earliest medieval Arab geographers. It appears to have been used as an Arabic adjectival noun in the region since as early as the 7th century CE

Israeli historian Efraim Karsh takes the view that the Palestinian identity did not develop until after the 1967 war because the Palestinian exodus had fractured society so greatly that it was impossible to piece together a national identity. Between 1948 and 1967, the Jordanians and other Arab countries hosting Arab refugees from Palestine/Israel silenced any expression of Palestinian identity and occupied their lands until Israel's conquests of 1967. The formal annexation of the West Bank by Jordan in 1950, and the subsequent granting of its Palestinian residents Jordanian citizenship, further stunted the growth of a Palestinian national identity by integrating them into Jordanian society

Perfect - because that explains exactly where the disconnect is occuring. You are referring to the "Palestinian Identity" - not people. It's like "Israeli" is a national identity even though Israel wasn't reinvented until the 1940s. The people have been there all along and they weren't just Jews.

Nor were they Palestinians by their own admittance, they were Syrians or Christians. The term Palestinian referred to the Jews only and was a nasty word, just as ****, Juden, Zionist and other words are

You're really mixing things up here - you're mixing religious identification with ethnic and national identifications.

Whatever you choose to call them - the people we now call Palestinians have existed there in one form or another for thousands of years - the names change, the people absorb changes in culture and religion with succeeding groups in power - but they are still the same people who call themselves Palistinian.

If "Palestinian" was once a slur aimed at Jews - that doesn't mean all Palestinians were Jews from the beginning to 1960. It's nothing more than a semantics.

 

[Phoenall]

Will this do



Palestinians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal historian Assaf Likhovski states that the prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the 20th century.[33] "Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine in a limited way until World War I.[

Syria Palestina continued to be used by historians and geographers and others to refer to the area between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river, as in the writings of Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder. After the Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.[51] The Arabic word Filastin has been used to refer to the region since the time of the earliest medieval Arab geographers. It appears to have been used as an Arabic adjectival noun in the region since as early as the 7th century CE

Israeli historian Efraim Karsh takes the view that the Palestinian identity did not develop until after the 1967 war because the Palestinian exodus had fractured society so greatly that it was impossible to piece together a national identity. Between 1948 and 1967, the Jordanians and other Arab countries hosting Arab refugees from Palestine/Israel silenced any expression of Palestinian identity and occupied their lands until Israel's conquests of 1967. The formal annexation of the West Bank by Jordan in 1950, and the subsequent granting of its Palestinian residents Jordanian citizenship, further stunted the growth of a Palestinian national identity by integrating them into Jordanian society

Perfect - because that explains exactly where the disconnect is occuring. You are referring to the "Palestinian Identity" - not people. It's like "Israeli" is a national identity even though Israel wasn't reinvented until the 1940s. The people have been there all along and they weren't just Jews.

True, but there were zero Muslim Palestinians. Most of them are just squatters with no tittles or deeds whatsoever to their stolen land.

Wrong. There were many Palestinian Muslims who had lived there as long as the indiginous Jews.

So you are now saying that islam was invented 2700 years before mo'mad was born. Why haven't we seen this mentioned in the history books, have we been lied to by our leaders all these years and really we should be worshipping allah.

Indigenous Jews have lived there for 4,500 years, Palestinian muslims for 22 years then for 140 years.

You seem to be missing big chunks of information Phoenal. For example - when Islam appeared, Muslims didn't just drop from the sky like manna from heaven. They didn't appear out nowhere fully formed.

The people that are Muslim today are descendents of peoples who lived there and were previously Christian, Jewish, and other religions that existed there. Read the quotes I posted. They are descendents of the indiginous peoples mixed with other people who migrated over time (just like the Jews).

So I suggest you ditch that bit of nonsense and look at some history books.

Your words

Wrong. There were many Palestinian Muslims who had lived there as long as the indiginous Jews.



The indigenous Jews have lived there for 4,500 years, islam and the muslims were not invented until 2700 years later so could not have lived there. They are arabs that came from the south, in fact the Arabian peninsular, they are not Jews and not indigenous to the area. It is you that needs to read proper history books and not Islamic nonsense and propaganda.

 

[Phoenall]

Will this do



Palestinians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal historian Assaf Likhovski states that the prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the 20th century.[33] "Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine in a limited way until World War I.[

Syria Palestina continued to be used by historians and geographers and others to refer to the area between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river, as in the writings of Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder. After the Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.[51] The Arabic word Filastin has been used to refer to the region since the time of the earliest medieval Arab geographers. It appears to have been used as an Arabic adjectival noun in the region since as early as the 7th century CE

Israeli historian Efraim Karsh takes the view that the Palestinian identity did not develop until after the 1967 war because the Palestinian exodus had fractured society so greatly that it was impossible to piece together a national identity. Between 1948 and 1967, the Jordanians and other Arab countries hosting Arab refugees from Palestine/Israel silenced any expression of Palestinian identity and occupied their lands until Israel's conquests of 1967. The formal annexation of the West Bank by Jordan in 1950, and the subsequent granting of its Palestinian residents Jordanian citizenship, further stunted the growth of a Palestinian national identity by integrating them into Jordanian society

Perfect - because that explains exactly where the disconnect is occuring. You are referring to the "Palestinian Identity" - not people. It's like "Israeli" is a national identity even though Israel wasn't reinvented until the 1940s. The people have been there all along and they weren't just Jews.

True, but there were zero Muslim Palestinians. Most of them are just squatters with no tittles or deeds whatsoever to their stolen land.

Nearly all Palestinians were either Muslim or Christian before the European Jews began colonizing the land.

Cant see the tags saying I am a muslim on any of those people, so how do you know what denomination they are ?

According to the Catholic church the majority of inhabitants were Jews, are you calling your church liars now ?

None of the census' from the Ottomans or the Mandate support that claim Phoenal.

From the Catholic church


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291
"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm



Want to try again as this is the results for the Sanjak of Jerusalem, which takes in most of what is now Israel and Jordan

 

[Phoenall]

It is not my facts at all, nor is it my claim. But it is the claim of the arab muslims prior to 1960 that the only Palestinians were the Jews, and the term was a racist swear word to the muslims

Support your claim with historical research then because I have found plenty of material that supports what I've shown and you can't discount it as "Islamonazifascistjooohating" sources.

Will this do



Palestinians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal historian Assaf Likhovski states that the prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the 20th century.[33] "Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine in a limited way until World War I.[

Syria Palestina continued to be used by historians and geographers and others to refer to the area between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river, as in the writings of Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder. After the Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.[51] The Arabic word Filastin has been used to refer to the region since the time of the earliest medieval Arab geographers. It appears to have been used as an Arabic adjectival noun in the region since as early as the 7th century CE

Israeli historian Efraim Karsh takes the view that the Palestinian identity did not develop until after the 1967 war because the Palestinian exodus had fractured society so greatly that it was impossible to piece together a national identity. Between 1948 and 1967, the Jordanians and other Arab countries hosting Arab refugees from Palestine/Israel silenced any expression of Palestinian identity and occupied their lands until Israel's conquests of 1967. The formal annexation of the West Bank by Jordan in 1950, and the subsequent granting of its Palestinian residents Jordanian citizenship, further stunted the growth of a Palestinian national identity by integrating them into Jordanian society

Perfect - because that explains exactly where the disconnect is occuring. You are referring to the "Palestinian Identity" - not people. It's like "Israeli" is a national identity even though Israel wasn't reinvented until the 1940s. The people have been there all along and they weren't just Jews.

Nor were they Palestinians by their own admittance, they were Syrians or Christians. The term Palestinian referred to the Jews only and was a nasty word, just as ****, Juden, Zionist and other words are

You're really mixing things up here - you're mixing religious identification with ethnic and national identifications.

Whatever you choose to call them - the people we now call Palestinians have existed there in one form or another for thousands of years - the names change, the people absorb changes in culture and religion with succeeding groups in power - but they are still the same people who call themselves Palistinian.

If "Palestinian" was once a slur aimed at Jews - that doesn't mean all Palestinians were Jews from the beginning to 1960. It's nothing more than a semantics.

Not according to History that says in 1099 the arab muslims were run off the land, and only started to return in the mid 1800's. Then in 1890 they invaded in vast numbers on the promise of cultivated land and easy money

 

[Coyote]

Perfect - because that explains exactly where the disconnect is occuring. You are referring to the "Palestinian Identity" - not people. It's like "Israeli" is a national identity even though Israel wasn't reinvented until the 1940s. The people have been there all along and they weren't just Jews.

True, but there were zero Muslim Palestinians. Most of them are just squatters with no tittles or deeds whatsoever to their stolen land.

Wrong. There were many Palestinian Muslims who had lived there as long as the indiginous Jews.

So you are now saying that islam was invented 2700 years before mo'mad was born. Why haven't we seen this mentioned in the history books, have we been lied to by our leaders all these years and really we should be worshipping allah.

Indigenous Jews have lived there for 4,500 years, Palestinian muslims for 22 years then for 140 years.

You seem to be missing big chunks of information Phoenal. For example - when Islam appeared, Muslims didn't just drop from the sky like manna from heaven. They didn't appear out nowhere fully formed.

The people that are Muslim today are descendents of peoples who lived there and were previously Christian, Jewish, and other religions that existed there. Read the quotes I posted. They are descendents of the indiginous peoples mixed with other people who migrated over time (just like the Jews).

So I suggest you ditch that bit of nonsense and look at some history books.

Your words

Wrong. There were many Palestinian Muslims who had lived there as long as the indiginous Jews.



The indigenous Jews have lived there for 4,500 years, islam and the muslims were not invented until 2700 years later so could not have lived there. They are arabs that came from the south, in fact the Arabian peninsular, they are not Jews and not indigenous to the area. It is you that needs to read proper history books and not Islamic nonsense and propaganda.

Phoenal - THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE. You're implying that the only indiginous people are the people we now call Jews and that simply isn't true. NONE of my sources were "Islamic" - they were main stream historical sources. While some Arabs migrated - many indiginous people converted. When Christianity was the dominant religion - they converted. When Islam was the dominant religion - many converted.

This is supported by a number of historical sources. Can you support your claim by any reputable historical sources?

 

[Coyote]

Support your claim with historical research then because I have found plenty of material that supports what I've shown and you can't discount it as "Islamonazifascistjooohating" sources.

Will this do



Palestinians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal historian Assaf Likhovski states that the prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the 20th century.[33] "Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine in a limited way until World War I.[

Syria Palestina continued to be used by historians and geographers and others to refer to the area between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river, as in the writings of Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder. After the Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.[51] The Arabic word Filastin has been used to refer to the region since the time of the earliest medieval Arab geographers. It appears to have been used as an Arabic adjectival noun in the region since as early as the 7th century CE

Israeli historian Efraim Karsh takes the view that the Palestinian identity did not develop until after the 1967 war because the Palestinian exodus had fractured society so greatly that it was impossible to piece together a national identity. Between 1948 and 1967, the Jordanians and other Arab countries hosting Arab refugees from Palestine/Israel silenced any expression of Palestinian identity and occupied their lands until Israel's conquests of 1967. The formal annexation of the West Bank by Jordan in 1950, and the subsequent granting of its Palestinian residents Jordanian citizenship, further stunted the growth of a Palestinian national identity by integrating them into Jordanian society

Perfect - because that explains exactly where the disconnect is occuring. You are referring to the "Palestinian Identity" - not people. It's like "Israeli" is a national identity even though Israel wasn't reinvented until the 1940s. The people have been there all along and they weren't just Jews.

Nor were they Palestinians by their own admittance, they were Syrians or Christians. The term Palestinian referred to the Jews only and was a nasty word, just as ****, Juden, Zionist and other words are

You're really mixing things up here - you're mixing religious identification with ethnic and national identifications.

Whatever you choose to call them - the people we now call Palestinians have existed there in one form or another for thousands of years - the names change, the people absorb changes in culture and religion with succeeding groups in power - but they are still the same people who call themselves Palistinian.

If "Palestinian" was once a slur aimed at Jews - that doesn't mean all Palestinians were Jews from the beginning to 1960. It's nothing more than a semantics.

Not according to History that says in 1099 the arab muslims were run off the land, and only started to return in the mid 1800's. Then in 1890 they invaded in vast numbers on the promise of cultivated land and easy money

Not according to WHAT history?

 

[Coyote]

Perfect - because that explains exactly where the disconnect is occuring. You are referring to the "Palestinian Identity" - not people. It's like "Israeli" is a national identity even though Israel wasn't reinvented until the 1940s. The people have been there all along and they weren't just Jews.

True, but there were zero Muslim Palestinians. Most of them are just squatters with no tittles or deeds whatsoever to their stolen land.

Nearly all Palestinians were either Muslim or Christian before the European Jews began colonizing the land.

Cant see the tags saying I am a muslim on any of those people, so how do you know what denomination they are ?

According to the Catholic church the majority of inhabitants were Jews, are you calling your church liars now ?

None of the census' from the Ottomans or the Mandate support that claim Phoenal.

From the Catholic church


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291
"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm



Want to try again as this is the results for the Sanjak of Jerusalem, which takes in most of what is now Israel and Jordan

Demographic history of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

The question is not about number. It is not about who is indigenous.

Anyone can look at the number and see that there were more Arabs than Jews. But that is not the question at all.

The question is bigger than the selfish wants of the utilitarian Arabs in the territory. It is about the safety and preservation of an entire culture. And the great thinkers and leaders of that time understood that.

Arguments against setting the Jews in an area from which they cannot defend themselves are perhaps more intuitive: much of the populations, such as those of the WWII Europe where under threat from human social orders that could not be foreseen in 1916. But 1947, there was more to consider than just the Arabs of Palestine, because the world leaders saw that, absent an adequate defense, the Arab would eventually turn on the Jews, just as the Europeans did.

Demographic history of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

The question has to do with the intent.

Without regard to the majority and dominance of the Arab over the Jews in the territory, the question has been:

Did the Allied Powers, taking control of the territory at the end of WWI, have the necessary authority under turn-of-the-Century customary law, to determine the future of the territory as determined in the San Remo Convention and expressed in numerous documents up to and including the Treaty of Lausanne:

ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

No, sheer numbers, land ownership, and longevity are not the simplified moral logic that was used in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. It was much bigger than that.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

The question is not about number. It is not about who is indigenous.

Anyone can look at the number and see that there were more Arabs than Jews. But that is not the question at all.

The question is bigger than the selfish wants of the utilitarian Arabs in the territory. It is about the safety and preservation of an entire culture. And the great thinkers and leaders of that time understood that.

Arguments against setting the Jews in an area from which they cannot defend themselves are perhaps more intuitive: much of the populations, such as those of the WWII Europe where under threat from human social orders that could not be foreseen in 1916. But 1947, there was more to consider than just the Arabs of Palestine, because the world leaders saw that, absent an adequate defense, the Arab would eventually turn on the Jews, just as the Europeans did.

Demographic history of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

The question has to do with the intent.

Without regard to the majority and dominance of the Arab over the Jews in the territory, the question has been:

Did the Allied Powers, taking control of the territory at the end of WWI, have the necessary authority under turn-of-the-Century customary law, to determine the future of the territory as determined in the San Remo Convention and expressed in numerous documents up to and including the Treaty of Lausanne:

ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

No, sheer numbers, land ownership, and longevity are not the simplified moral logic that was used in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. It was much bigger than that.

Most Respectfully,
R

I see "selfish" intent in those who seek to disenfranchise a people by insisting they are "invaders" and by implication - that they have no rights to the region even though they have been there for centuries.

The indiginous people of Palestine were not just the Jews. They included Muslims and Christians who descended from people that predated the arrival of Islam. Yet people keep insisting that they are "squatters", "invaders". They are as indiginous as the Jews. That means they have rights there.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, et al,

The question is not about number. It is not about who is indigenous.

Anyone can look at the number and see that there were more Arabs than Jews. But that is not the question at all.

The question is bigger than the selfish wants of the utilitarian Arabs in the territory. It is about the safety and preservation of an entire culture. And the great thinkers and leaders of that time understood that.

Arguments against setting the Jews in an area from which they cannot defend themselves are perhaps more intuitive: much of the populations, such as those of the WWII Europe where under threat from human social orders that could not be foreseen in 1916. But 1947, there was more to consider than just the Arabs of Palestine, because the world leaders saw that, absent an adequate defense, the Arab would eventually turn on the Jews, just as the Europeans did.

Demographic history of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

The question has to do with the intent.

Without regard to the majority and dominance of the Arab over the Jews in the territory, the question has been:

Did the Allied Powers, taking control of the territory at the end of WWI, have the necessary authority under turn-of-the-Century customary law, to determine the future of the territory as determined in the San Remo Convention and expressed in numerous documents up to and including the Treaty of Lausanne:

ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

No, sheer numbers, land ownership, and longevity are not the simplified moral logic that was used in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. It was much bigger than that.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but none of that had anything to do with the creation of Israel.

 

[montelatici]

Coyote, et al,

The question is not about number. It is not about who is indigenous.

Anyone can look at the number and see that there were more Arabs than Jews. But that is not the question at all.

The question is bigger than the selfish wants of the utilitarian Arabs in the territory. It is about the safety and preservation of an entire culture. And the great thinkers and leaders of that time understood that.

Arguments against setting the Jews in an area from which they cannot defend themselves are perhaps more intuitive: much of the populations, such as those of the WWII Europe where under threat from human social orders that could not be foreseen in 1916. But 1947, there was more to consider than just the Arabs of Palestine, because the world leaders saw that, absent an adequate defense, the Arab would eventually turn on the Jews, just as the Europeans did.

Demographic history of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

The question has to do with the intent.

Without regard to the majority and dominance of the Arab over the Jews in the territory, the question has been:

Did the Allied Powers, taking control of the territory at the end of WWI, have the necessary authority under turn-of-the-Century customary law, to determine the future of the territory as determined in the San Remo Convention and expressed in numerous documents up to and including the Treaty of Lausanne:

ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

No, sheer numbers, land ownership, and longevity are not the simplified moral logic that was used in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. It was much bigger than that.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Covenant of the League of Nations reserved rights to self-determination, independence and statehood to the native inhabitants of the former territories of the defeated nations. The Jews were in Europe. The handful of Jews that were native inhabitants numbered in the hundreds in Jeruslam, they were Arabs in everything but religion. The establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine was a colonial land grab, no different than Cecil B. Rhode's charter to colonize what became Rhodesia. Don't try to glorify a disgusting piece of colonial evil.

 

[Phoenall]

True, but there were zero Muslim Palestinians. Most of them are just squatters with no tittles or deeds whatsoever to their stolen land.

Wrong. There were many Palestinian Muslims who had lived there as long as the indiginous Jews.

So you are now saying that islam was invented 2700 years before mo'mad was born. Why haven't we seen this mentioned in the history books, have we been lied to by our leaders all these years and really we should be worshipping allah.

Indigenous Jews have lived there for 4,500 years, Palestinian muslims for 22 years then for 140 years.

You seem to be missing big chunks of information Phoenal. For example - when Islam appeared, Muslims didn't just drop from the sky like manna from heaven. They didn't appear out nowhere fully formed.

The people that are Muslim today are descendents of peoples who lived there and were previously Christian, Jewish, and other religions that existed there. Read the quotes I posted. They are descendents of the indiginous peoples mixed with other people who migrated over time (just like the Jews).

So I suggest you ditch that bit of nonsense and look at some history books.

Your words

Wrong. There were many Palestinian Muslims who had lived there as long as the indiginous Jews.



The indigenous Jews have lived there for 4,500 years, islam and the muslims were not invented until 2700 years later so could not have lived there. They are arabs that came from the south, in fact the Arabian peninsular, they are not Jews and not indigenous to the area. It is you that needs to read proper history books and not Islamic nonsense and propaganda.

Phoenal - THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE. You're implying that the only indiginous people are the people we now call Jews and that simply isn't true. NONE of my sources were "Islamic" - they were main stream historical sources. While some Arabs migrated - many indiginous people converted. When Christianity was the dominant religion - they converted. When Islam was the dominant religion - many converted.

This is supported by a number of historical sources. Can you support your claim by any reputable historical sources?

Don't confuse the carrier of the information with the author of the information and claim that the carrier is the source. Your sources were written by muslims making them Islamic propaganda.

When islam invaded they practised the commands in the koran and forced people to convert, many faked conversion and kept their original religion in secret. The Roman church was the same and forced conversion on people, and they faked their conversion. Well documented by many prominent Judaic scholars of the time who faked conversion so they could write it all down. The most well known accounts where those of Maimonides a Jewish scholar who pretended to be a muslim.

 

[Phoenall]

Will this do



Palestinians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal historian Assaf Likhovski states that the prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the 20th century.[33] "Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine in a limited way until World War I.[

Syria Palestina continued to be used by historians and geographers and others to refer to the area between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river, as in the writings of Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder. After the Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.[51] The Arabic word Filastin has been used to refer to the region since the time of the earliest medieval Arab geographers. It appears to have been used as an Arabic adjectival noun in the region since as early as the 7th century CE

Israeli historian Efraim Karsh takes the view that the Palestinian identity did not develop until after the 1967 war because the Palestinian exodus had fractured society so greatly that it was impossible to piece together a national identity. Between 1948 and 1967, the Jordanians and other Arab countries hosting Arab refugees from Palestine/Israel silenced any expression of Palestinian identity and occupied their lands until Israel's conquests of 1967. The formal annexation of the West Bank by Jordan in 1950, and the subsequent granting of its Palestinian residents Jordanian citizenship, further stunted the growth of a Palestinian national identity by integrating them into Jordanian society

Perfect - because that explains exactly where the disconnect is occuring. You are referring to the "Palestinian Identity" - not people. It's like "Israeli" is a national identity even though Israel wasn't reinvented until the 1940s. The people have been there all along and they weren't just Jews.

Nor were they Palestinians by their own admittance, they were Syrians or Christians. The term Palestinian referred to the Jews only and was a nasty word, just as ****, Juden, Zionist and other words are

You're really mixing things up here - you're mixing religious identification with ethnic and national identifications.

Whatever you choose to call them - the people we now call Palestinians have existed there in one form or another for thousands of years - the names change, the people absorb changes in culture and religion with succeeding groups in power - but they are still the same people who call themselves Palistinian.

If "Palestinian" was once a slur aimed at Jews - that doesn't mean all Palestinians were Jews from the beginning to 1960. It's nothing more than a semantics.

Not according to History that says in 1099 the arab muslims were run off the land, and only started to return in the mid 1800's. Then in 1890 they invaded in vast numbers on the promise of cultivated land and easy money

Not according to WHAT history?

Ottoman history, Maimonides history, Catholic church history for starters. Most muslims were illiterate so only their leaders were able to write down the histories, so of course they fudged those histories to hide the real world from prying eyes.

 

[Phoenall]

True, but there were zero Muslim Palestinians. Most of them are just squatters with no tittles or deeds whatsoever to their stolen land.

Nearly all Palestinians were either Muslim or Christian before the European Jews began colonizing the land.

Cant see the tags saying I am a muslim on any of those people, so how do you know what denomination they are ?

According to the Catholic church the majority of inhabitants were Jews, are you calling your church liars now ?

None of the census' from the Ottomans or the Mandate support that claim Phoenal.

From the Catholic church


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291
"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm



Want to try again as this is the results for the Sanjak of Jerusalem, which takes in most of what is now Israel and Jordan

Demographic history of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A 2015 entry by an Islamic, want to put two and two together ?

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, et al,

The question is not about number. It is not about who is indigenous.

Anyone can look at the number and see that there were more Arabs than Jews. But that is not the question at all.

The question is bigger than the selfish wants of the utilitarian Arabs in the territory. It is about the safety and preservation of an entire culture. And the great thinkers and leaders of that time understood that.

Arguments against setting the Jews in an area from which they cannot defend themselves are perhaps more intuitive: much of the populations, such as those of the WWII Europe where under threat from human social orders that could not be foreseen in 1916. But 1947, there was more to consider than just the Arabs of Palestine, because the world leaders saw that, absent an adequate defense, the Arab would eventually turn on the Jews, just as the Europeans did.

Demographic history of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

The question has to do with the intent.

Without regard to the majority and dominance of the Arab over the Jews in the territory, the question has been:

Did the Allied Powers, taking control of the territory at the end of WWI, have the necessary authority under turn-of-the-Century customary law, to determine the future of the territory as determined in the San Remo Convention and expressed in numerous documents up to and including the Treaty of Lausanne:

ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

No, sheer numbers, land ownership, and longevity are not the simplified moral logic that was used in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. It was much bigger than that.

Most Respectfully,
R

I see "selfish" intent in those who seek to disenfranchise a people by insisting they are "invaders" and by implication - that they have no rights to the region even though they have been there for centuries.

The indiginous people of Palestine were not just the Jews. They included Muslims and Christians who descended from people that predated the arrival of Islam. Yet people keep insisting that they are "squatters", "invaders". They are as indiginous as the Jews. That means they have rights there.

The problem is far too many visitors to Palestine in the mid to late 17C report that the land was empty apart from the Jewish farms that bloomed like an oasis in the desert. The Ottoman census all show that the Jews were in the Majority, and that the arab muslims were itinerant farm labourers that followed the harvest. They were not indigenous to the land as they went back "home" at the end of every year to their families. The indigenous were mainly Jews followed by Christians that migrated over the millennia and the occasional arab muslim Fellah. It was only in around 1890 that the arab muslims from Syria and Egypt invaded on the promise of work and the chance to steal cultivated land. A pity that the Jews were now better organised and had defence groups to ward of muslim attacks. The arab muslims are just like the European invaders of America from the 1700's, not indigenous to the land

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, et al,

The question is not about number. It is not about who is indigenous.

Anyone can look at the number and see that there were more Arabs than Jews. But that is not the question at all.

The question is bigger than the selfish wants of the utilitarian Arabs in the territory. It is about the safety and preservation of an entire culture. And the great thinkers and leaders of that time understood that.

Arguments against setting the Jews in an area from which they cannot defend themselves are perhaps more intuitive: much of the populations, such as those of the WWII Europe where under threat from human social orders that could not be foreseen in 1916. But 1947, there was more to consider than just the Arabs of Palestine, because the world leaders saw that, absent an adequate defense, the Arab would eventually turn on the Jews, just as the Europeans did.

Demographic history of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

The question has to do with the intent.

Without regard to the majority and dominance of the Arab over the Jews in the territory, the question has been:

Did the Allied Powers, taking control of the territory at the end of WWI, have the necessary authority under turn-of-the-Century customary law, to determine the future of the territory as determined in the San Remo Convention and expressed in numerous documents up to and including the Treaty of Lausanne:

ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

No, sheer numbers, land ownership, and longevity are not the simplified moral logic that was used in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. It was much bigger than that.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Covenant of the League of Nations reserved rights to self-determination, independence and statehood to the native inhabitants of the former territories of the defeated nations. The Jews were in Europe. The handful of Jews that were native inhabitants numbered in the hundreds in Jeruslam, they were Arabs in everything but religion. The establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine was a colonial land grab, no different than Cecil B. Rhode's charter to colonize what became Rhodesia. Don't try to glorify a disgusting piece of colonial evil.

Not According to the Ottomans and the Catholic church